01/24/2011

Crufts Follow-Up: Vet Checks & Purebred Health

This discussion was spawned by the emerging decision of Crufts officials to hold winning dogs to an additional level of scrutiny beyond the official dog show judges selections. This second level of judging is unprecedented in the world of dogs. To the dog show spectator or consumer/owner of dogs, this may seem like an idea whose time has come to help protect the dogs and the prospective dog owners. But to those who participate in this type of event, this second level of judging fails to serve the purpose of protecting the dogs, the breeders, the consumer, or the sport.

There are several reasons this approach is destined to fail.

First, the breeds and breed traits selected by Crufts were merely based on extremes of appearance. Appearance is what makes the breeds what they are in the first place. Whether we approve or not, extreme body characteristics are how these dogs were selected for breeding and competition. If we decide the extremes are too extreme, we should go back to the source and limit ourselves to more moderate body types. We should not allow this to be rewarded, and then snatch away the reward based on a veterinarian's opinion after the fact. There are better ways than this to move breed standards to where Cruft's officials think they should be.

Second, they are asking specially selected veterinarians to overrule the judge's decision after the judge has awarded the dog a winning place. If it is determined that this type of health screening is appropriate, it should be done before, not after, the dogs have been selected as winners. It would be far more fair to all exhibitors to screen the pool of participants prior to judging so the final decision is made by the judge. The point in all animal judging is to pick the winner based on its appearance or performance.

Third, a veterinarian's opinion is merely one more opinion. It is just as subjective as a dog show judge's opinion when appearance is the standard. As a veterinarian, I would not want to have to make a heavily scrutinized decision to take away a win without objective criteria. There is not a way to develop objective criteria – measurable characteristics – for the traits the Crufts officials seem to be targeting. In other words, there is no test that can be held up to be repeatable, for these traits. There is no equivalent to a blood sugar test to say what is normal and what is abnormal in this setting.

Fourth, they have decided to start with 15 breeds with the most "troublesome" characteristics. This group of dogs seems to be somewhat arbitrarily selected as we all have an opinion of which breeds have the most worrisome traits.

Fifth, the selected breeds seem to have been discriminated against based only on appearance. Appearance is an obvious health concern, but in no way does it reflect the real potential health concerns we experience in the world of dogs. Many of the biggest health threats we see in dogs cannot be seen with the naked eye, only with advanced diagnostics. We should be putting our efforts into eliminating disorders such as epilepsy and cruciate ruptures from the gene pool, not into telling judges how to do their jobs.

------------------------------------------

The purebred versus hybrid dog argument clearly has no easy answers. I will use "hybrid dog" as the term for any dog with more than one breed of dog in its background. There are many small studies, but no comprehensive studies on either side. It is unlikely there ever will be one of the scope that would help in this debate as there is no financial gain for either side that would make the expense of the study worthwhile. Patching together bits and pieces of retrospective studies does little to answer the big question of which is "healthier." As dog people, I am not certain we could even agree on what "healthier" means.

It is probable that many disorders we see today will be known in the future as having a genetic basis. There is probably a genetic basis that explains a tendency to develop or be resistant to bacterial, viral, and parasitic diseases. We know there are genetic tendencies to the development of certain types of cancer. Certain behavioral traits also play a role in the development of disorders, and these probably have a genetic basis as well. For example, there are risk-taking dogs – the ones who like to run, who are more likely to suffer trauma than the dog who won't leave the owner's side long enough for the owner to visit the bathroom.

Most disorders we see in purebred dogs were not created by the breeder or the breeding program. They are the result of a mutation or a magnification of a trait by combining genes. All dogs have at least one genetic disorder and usually have many, purebred or hybrid. No dog is perfect. If there is a genetic disorder in a breed, it is one that was in the foundation stock as a mutation or magnification, most that occurred hundreds to thousands of years ago. But that disorder happens to have traveled along generation to generation by being linked to another trait that was desirable and was perpetuated, intentionally or unintentionally.

Many purebred dog breeders have not only put themselves under the microscope in an effort to breed dogs with fewer defects, they have bought and paid for the microscope. By this, I don't mean they are paying for biased research. I mean they are the people who are trying to understand their breed's disorders and deal with them responsibly. The breed clubs are funding excellent, independent research to understand the disorders that may plague their breed. They are supporting the development of DNA and other tests to aid in their ability to screen for disorders, to work their way out of disorders that have occurred in their breed. So this is a double-edged sword for this group – the same tool that they have helped to develop to "improve" their breed is now being used against them to take them down. Does this seem unjust to anyone besides me?

Not all purebred dog breeders are created equal. Not all breed for conformation – some breed for performance, such as field work or herding – functions that still serve society today. Some purebred breeders screen and appropriately use the data they collect by screening. Some don't screen. Some don't use the data. Some don't use the data correctly and haphazardly slash dogs with valuable genetics from their lines because they may carry a trait or have a trait of relatively minor health consequences, further narrowing the gene pool in a breed of dog with too little genetic diversity to begin with.

Not all hybrid breed dog breeders are created equal either. Some (but not all) are every bit as careful with their genetic screening and selection as those who apply it to purebred breeding programs.

We should not paint all breeders with the same broad brush. Nor should we paint the expectations of dog buyers and owners with the same broad brush. Each has their own set of needs and goals. If a dog buyer wants to purchase a dog with a predictable appearance, size, temperament, and skill set, they should have that opportunity to do so. If they prefer to purchase a dog with such a varied genetic background that they cannot predict what they are likely to look like or act like, that too should be their option.

Every day in our veterinary clinic, we see purebred dogs and cats as well as hybrid dogs and cats. If only purebred dogs and cats became ill, what would veterinarians and their staff do all day? Hybrid dogs and cats fill the exam and surgery rooms of veterinary clinics all over the country as they too suffer from illnesses and injuries.

Farmers must have figured out along the way that there is something to purebred animals. Most production animals are purebred – such as Holsteins or Angus cattle. They are used for production because of predictable genetic performance, not to impress the neighboring farmer or for their own ego. Farmers do outcross animals when there is a trait they are specifically looking to perpetuate. But if they had severe health problems in purebreds, they could not be financially successful and would no longer use purebred stock as the backbone of their production program.

The human species is the most outcrossed species on the planet, due to our freedom to travel and mate with minimal restrictions. If simply outcrossing genetics made all the bad genes "fall out" of the gene pool, humans would be free of genetic disorders. Unfortunately, as we all know, this is not the case. So the same is true in dogs and cats – a mere random outcrossed breeding does not lead to freedom from genetic diseases.

In short, this approach to judging is too little too late. It may make Crufts officials and the general public feel warm and fuzzy – that somehow they are trying to move the agenda of protecting the dogs and consumers forward, but as you can see, it is merely window-dressing and does not truly address the problems of dog genetics.

-Dr Marty Greer, DVM, JD, NAIA Board Member

Dr Greer has run the Brownsville/Lomira Small Animal Clinic in Wisconsin since 1982. In 2002, she opened the International Canine Semen Bank-Wisconsin, which allows breeders to preserve their dog’s semen for use at another time or a remote location. A specialist in her field, she has contributed to pharmaceutical and nutritional research as an investigator and was appointed to the Wisconsin Veterinary Examining Board. Dr. Greer also trains service dogs for CCI, and recently earned her law degree from Marquette University.

While a vet may be able to see some health issues from the dog's appearance, most health issues are "under the hood" so to speak and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Some examples that come to mind - ED, HD, cataracts (unless really bad), SAS to name a few. These to me are extremely important.

Excellent article. I completely agree that the way this has been implemented is problematic. However, I would be extremely interested to know what you feel IS a solution. I find the exaggerated features purposefully bred into some breeds that result in almost guaranteed health problems is a very real problem in our fancy. Not only do the dogs suffer, but the practice lends major ammunition to the AR agenda.

Based on the current condition of some breeds (and some very high profile winners as of late) it appears clear that even if some breeders within a given breed may be trying to clean up the problem, not all are. Is there any real chance at all that this will change without a forced hand? Unfortunately, I don't think so.

Thank you for a thoughtful article but I feel you are being a little unfair to the Kennel Club. Obviously the current examination of the 15 breeds (and the timing of it) with withdrawal of Best of Breed for those who 'fail' does seem like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut but I can see where they are coming from. In recent years we have had the rewriting of breed standards and the formation of breed councils, both of which, in the case of my breed (Chows) has had some benefit. In our case entropion has been reduced and also skin problems, though I suspect that has as much to do with changes in feeding and improved parasite control. However, as far as I can tell there has been little improvement in, for instance, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia and cruciate ligament injuries. None of these, obviously, can be diagnosed by sight alone though in my experience, with Chows, you can get some idea by looking at the conformation of the hind quarters. Some Chows have what I call 'teapot bum(!)', where the tail looks like it has been stuck on as an afterthought rather than flowing up and over the spine as it should.
I personally don't have a problem with very heavy headed Chows as in my experience they still function perfectly well, both in their everyday lives and breeding-wise, as long as they don't have entropion. I was informed by a very wise man, the chief eye man at Edinburgh Vet School in fact, that entropion is NOT determined by the heaviness of the head but by an equal mix of genetics and environmental factors, something that is bourne out by my own exoeriences with the breed in that of the four I have had to have operated on one was heavy and three were certainly not! Of the three who were not two suffered badly from skin problems and the entropion started during bad eczema flare ups.
Apologies for my random musings and anecdotal observations.
I would like to add that I feel extremely sad for the breeders of the dogs who were disqualified at Crufts, what a horrible shock for them and I have seen nothing to suggest that they are anything but decent breeders. In summary the Kennel Club might have got the METHOD a bit wrong but the INTENTIONS are right.

Firstly the breeds and breed traits were NOT selected selected by Crufts. Crufts is just another show, abit a high profiles show, just like any other, and as such is held under rules laid down by the UK KC. The decision to vet check certain breeds was taken by the KC based on the Bateson report on pedigree dog health.

Second, logistically it would be impossible to vet check all dogs at Crufts or even all entries in the 15 breeds considered at risk. Yes it would be nice to test all qualifying dogs at the show where they qualified, but Crufts is a very international show, with dogs coming from all over the world. And other countries would not take kindly to us trying to dictate how they run their shows. The Clumber for example came to Crufts from Croatia, and in a champion in many countries including America, but NOT incidentally a UK champion, so it's possible that it's never been to the UK before Crufts! No chance to vet check it before the day!

As to point 3. As I said above, Crufts officials are targetting nothing, mearely obeying the rules laid down by the UK KC.

Point 4 I explained in point one.

Point 5 is really nothing about showing. A dog with a cruciate injury would never move acceptably in the ring. These things have nothing to do with showing. I know for example that at least two teams are looking for the gene/genes for epilepsy in Labradors, and after owning an epileptic Labrador it's something close to my heart. But nothing that can be viewed or judged in the show ring. Remember, a judge is judging the dog in the ring, not the dogs name!

Is it correct to remove all dogs from the breeding pool who have a health problem? At first sight one has to say yes. But looked at a bit deeper, for example, most Bulldogs have health problem. Take those dogs from the gene pool and are you then going to have to breed so tightly that the breed starts suffering from inbreeding depression? I think it very likely. In other words, use that approach and the breed will go extinct. What Bulldogs are has taken over 100 years so to think it can be changed at a stroke is living in cloud Cuckoo land. Yes the breed can be improved, if everyone wants it. The KC for example changed the wording of the Bulldog Breed Standard to try to remove excesses, but the KC's in other countries, I believe the AKC for one refused to change theirs. So in time we are going to have two very different Bulldogs in the world, in the same way that the AKC in their wisdom decided to issue a very different Labrador Standard to the UK standard, effectively creating a different breed.

It’s easy to be the “Expert” and write how good the KC has been to make a stand, or how bad the KC has been to penalise those poor dogs and owners. But things are never that easy. Yes I think the KC needed to do something, but no, I don’t think they have got it right yet. In the same way it’s easy to kick the breeders for what they have done. But strange no one was making a fuss before the Jemima Harrison's “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” program. Being wise after the event is not clever. (That bit is not aimed at Dr Greer, but a general statement aimed at everyone jumping in on the bandwaggon, and there are plenty of those!)

Crufts will no longer be a show of importance. The anti breeder agenda of the RSPCA is equivalent to the Humane Society of United States. Their goal is to destroy breeders and all exhibitions. Wayne Pacelle of HSUS and all of his world side counter parts have stated ALL breeds are man made and therefore should be one generation and out. We have endured Vets who misinterpret and misuse scales to further the rights of the "pet".

Very intresting article, and so right considering the health issues.
Only thing is, while this is a comment to the do's and don't's of Crufts, this view is too broad, in this situation. Offering the malicious a reason to say this is not fair, so it's not good.

We are in a "beauty" contest. So only exterior is shown. For that reason, only health issues that can be seen, should be taken care of in this matter. While a judge of beauty is not ALLOWED to judge health problems, the idea of using vet's for that, is a correct one.

Dog's that cannot breath properly, cannot walk in a normal way and have constant pain because of eye / back or skull problems f.e., can easily be deducted on sight.

So this is only a start. You have to begin at one point.

Altough I think the way this rule was implemented was rather harsh, when one speaks of fair or unfair, maybe this was the only way to begin.
Is it fair to let a dog suffer, because the owner can win a beauty contest?
Most breeders see their dogs as their childs. What would you choose for your children?

You can say, it's not honoust that only the winning dog's get a vet check. But you also can see this from another angle.
Every breeder should know how to breed. By entering the ring, you confirm to that rule. So it really doesn't matter if a check comes before or after a show. (Like a doping test in sports.)
And of course there is the practical thing, that testing all dogs is way to expensive. So it's understandable that an organisation chooses this way.

Hopefully, soon, kennelclubs all over the world will see to other healthproblems that cannot be seen from the outside more profound that is done nowadays.
To back up the responsible breeders that always ask : Do I breed to win contests in the first place or do I breed because I like healthy dogs that have a good life and besides that also can win contests?
Because health in dogs is always, in the first place a breeders thing.

Speaking about cattle, farmers do not have closed pedigrees perse.
In the past there have been problems with the genetic structure of cattle. And there still is.
Only thing is, most cattle don't die of old age. So diseases like cancer some eye diseases etc never show up.
Besides that, farmers have the opportunity to use other genetic material.
Dogbreeders don't.

Very well and throughly thought out from all angles. If one dog/breed is checked within a group, all dogs/breeds should be checked as is the rule when judging within a single class - if one is measured, all should be measured, if one is temperament tested, all are temperament tested.
On the examination itself, can someone tell me how they can discard results from qualified specialists?Many animals have clearances/passed health screening for various conditions within their breeds - are these results to be ignored - if so, it is sending the wrong message - like why bother to test if the results will be ignored?
On the judging, most judges are quite competent to carry out visual checks for health - lameness/soundness of movement relative to their standards, healthy eyes(not squinting/no discharges), healthy coats etc - unless these dogs are in peak condition, they are rarely selected to win a class.
While I appluade the increasing use of health testing, be it of repeatable reliable schemes (hip/elbow screening), DNA testing, eye screening etc, surely this should be the aim/basis for improving the overall health of breeds in the long term, for as the author states many diseases and deadly/debhilitating diseases are not visible to the naked eye.
If needs be, long term goals should then tie good/excellent health results to the issuing of challenge certificates as is occuring the some Scandanavian countries at present.
"Testing" a few dogs by non-specialist veterinarians does not improve dogs, apart from creating the warm fuzzy feeling as mentioned within the general public.

Yes, but judges are making their decisions based on external physical characteristics. Isn't it fair enough that the system should do what it can to encourage judges and therefore breeders to avoid producing dogs with external physical characteristics which carry a health cost? As far as the "hidden" issues go, maybe where there are tests available they should be made compulsory for competing dogs (and certainly for breeding stock). I don't think anyone is claiming that the new checks are going to solve all problems, but at least it's a start.

Please don't use the word hybrid for mixed breeds, since too many pet people think mixes must have "hybrid vigor", which they can't have because dogs are all the same species. We need to get over the general public's idea that any randomly bred mixed breed dog must be healthier than a purebred.